|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
And the kind, but firm hand you use in regulating Groklaw is appreciated by its
readers.
:)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
I don't work for Oracle. I'm a sometimes android developer. I did own a tiny
amount of stock in booth Google and Oracle, but own neither at the moment.
I happen to think that to have Oracle's unreasonable view of API
copyrightability prevail would be disastrous across the industry - really,
Android would be in less trouble than a lot of other projects. But that doesn't
mean that everything that has been posted in opposition to them is factually
accurate. In particular, there seems to be some misunderstanding from
"jbb" about what Dalvik is, and some severe overstatements of what the
consequences of using GPL rather than apache licensed userspace components would
be. That's not an argument that Dalvik is a bad idea, or that Google's decision
to go with an apache licensed userspace was wrong - it's just about setting
setting straight the facts surrounding those decisions.
I'm not _intentionally_ doing anything to mask my IP address, though my ISP may
well be using some NAT or similar scheme which has that affect.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 04:04 AM EDT |
Author of the above comment did not start this thread - I did.
Now, I do not work for Oracle, neither do I work at Google. I
have never worked at either of these companies and hopefully
never will.
My point is that Oracle isn't trying to go after all implementers of open APIs.
They're trying to specifically nail
Google. If they win this case they may be far-reaching
consequences, but Oracle is simply using the API copyright as a
legal tool, a tactic, to try and nail Google for something that
Oracle believes (and I do, too) of very questionable ethics.
Google could have licensed Java. They say Sun were dragging
their feet - fine; they could have built their own new platform.
They chose not to, and most of their decisions of what to re-
implement came not from a technical perspective but from a legal
one. They were thinking: if we re-implement this and that bit,
would that be enough to circumvent Java's license? It was
perfectly clear (because it was explicitly stated) that Sun did
everything in its power to prevent others from implementing Java
on mobile devices. That's exactly what Google did, and they
didn't even re-implement Java! They told developers: you can use
all your existing Java tools, existing compilers and whatnot.
And when you're done compiling your software just run it through
our conversion program that would bring it over to our platform.
Is this lawful? Maybe. But it's certainly a nasty business
trick. So now Oracle is trying to do a courtroom trick. That's
all.
So the lesson is that Oracle will not go after you if you're
copying their APIs. They will go after you if you implement Java
on a mobile device.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|